35 F.4th 710
9th Cir.2022Background
- Detectives surveilled Daniel Andrews as a suspect in multiple armed robberies and developed probable cause to arrest him.
- Andrews and an associate entered the Henderson Municipal Courthouse and passed through security (metal detector/x‑ray); detectives waited outside in plain clothes knowing Andrews would be unarmed on exit.
- As Andrews exited, Detectives Watford and Lippisch approached without identifying themselves or warning; Watford lunged and tackled Andrews and Lippisch landed on them, causing an acetabular hip fracture that required two surgeries.
- Supervisors reviewed the use‑of‑force report and video and determined the conduct did not violate HPD policy; Andrews sued the detectives and the City under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (excessive force and municipal liability theories).
- The district court denied the detectives’ qualified immunity motion (finding a genuine dispute whether force was reasonable) and denied the City’s summary judgment except as to ratification; the detectives appealed interlocutorily and the Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of qualified immunity but declined pendent review of the City’s ratification ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether detectives used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment | Andrews: surprise tackle of an unarmed, nonresisting person that caused serious injury was unreasonable | Detectives: suspected armed‑robbery suspect justified significant force | A reasonable jury could find a Fourth Amendment violation; summary judgment on this issue denied to officers |
| Whether detectives are entitled to qualified immunity (clearly established right) | Andrews: Blankenhorn and related precedent put officers on notice that gang‑tackling a calm, nonthreatening suspect without warning is unconstitutional | Detectives: severity of suspected crimes (armed robbery) distinguished Blankenhorn and undermines clearly established notice | Blankenhorn and related cases clearly established the right; qualified immunity denial affirmed |
| Whether this court may exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction to review the City’s denial of summary judgment on ratification | Andrews: supervisors’ review and lack of discipline permit a ratification inference | City: municipal rulings are not immediately appealable; lack of evidence of a final policymaker ratifying conduct | Ninth Circuit declines pendent jurisdiction; does not review City’s ratification denial |
| Viability of failure‑to‑train or custom/practice municipal theories | Andrews: alleged City training/policy failures | City: no supporting evidence presented | District court rejected those theories for lack of evidence (denied to Andrews) |
Key Cases Cited
- Blankenhorn v. City of Orange, 485 F.3d 463 (9th Cir. 2007) (gang‑tackling a relatively calm, nonresisting suspect can be excessive force)
- Rice v. Morehouse, 989 F.3d 1112 (9th Cir. 2021) (Fourth Amendment excessive‑force framework at summary judgment)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (objective‑reasonableness standard for excessive force)
- Rivas‑Villegas v. Cortesluna, 142 S. Ct. 4 (2021) (clearly‑established rights must be defined with specificity)
- White v. Pauly, 137 S. Ct. 548 (2017) (existing precedent must place the constitutional question beyond debate)
- Smith v. City of Hemet, 394 F.3d 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (prior violent conduct does not justify significant force when suspect poses no immediate threat)
- Santos v. Gates, 287 F.3d 846 (9th Cir. 2002) (serious injury from takedown relevant to substantial‑force inquiry)
- Bryan v. MacPherson, 630 F.3d 805 (9th Cir. 2010) (non‑minimal physical injuries inform degree of Fourth Amendment intrusion)
- Isayeva v. Sacramento Sheriff’s Dep’t, 872 F.3d 938 (9th Cir. 2017) (interlocutory appealability of qualified immunity denials)
- Hernandez v. City of San Jose, 897 F.3d 1125 (9th Cir. 2018) (limits on pendent appellate jurisdiction over municipal rulings)